Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 478 out of 708 people found the following review useful: Burton does it again ! from Belgium 5 July 2005 I have seen Charlie & The Chocolate Factory last night and though I usually don't care very much in giving my opinion, the journey M. Burton and his team made me cross deserves an homage. Especially with all that criticism rising around the film before it has been released. I have been a Tim Burton fan for more than a decade now; I grew up with his films. But what I have been through yesterday his really unique. I actually never thought he would offer us such a film one day. Fans of his first period, with all the lonely and desperate characters won't like it for sure. Since Mars Attacks !, and more specifically since Big Fish, Burton decided to tell things differently. His vision of the world slightly changed in every of his films : now, the rejected freak comes down to the world and stays. A world that remains frightening and weird even thought we call it "reality" but a world worth living in.

And that's what Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is all about It all begins with a main title sequence that may be one of the main weaknesses of the film. The sequence is very entertaining and visually ambitious but they decided to go with CGI and it looks like it was a decision they made in last minute. Since the film was proudly made with "real" sets, "real" Oompas Loompas, "real" squirrels, the main title looks inappropriate. It's not that important but it's a Tim Burton film and we know how much he usually works on his main title. Hopefully, Danny Elfman is there with a crazy mix of the Edward Scissorhands and Spider-Man (the music when the title of the film appears gave me shivers), a true musical roller-coaster that gives a hint on what his score will sound like through the film. After that, it's just emotions.

All kinds of them: laughs (many  the audience laughed almost every thirty seconds), tears of joy (we all know Charlie's gonna find that ticket but when he does, you just can't refrain your heart to beat faster), mercy (the way Burton depicts the social misery of the Bucket's family is really touching), amazement (the Wonka Factory and its many rooms is true wonder, one the most achieved design Burton ever offered us) and many mores. Very much like the book, even though it seems simple and childish, you would like to stop for a second to collect those feelings and try to analyze them but you don't have the time. It just never stops (I realize it might be a flaw for some people in fact). Burton never has been so generous in terms of human warmness. Johnny Depp proposes another inventive and completely wacky interpretation here. I won't compare with Gene Wilder since I don't know the first film very well (pretty unknown flick here in Europe) and those comparisons should stop anyway. Depp makes of Wonka a tormented and unadapted character who doesn't know much about common courtesy and doesn't really care anyway.

He built up his own universe in response to his authoritarian father and he's pretty proud of it. He just doesn't want those "weird" (a word he likes  you've all seen the TV spots) and boring parents with their despicable children to ruin what is life is based on. Yet So Depp's Wonka is actually very moving and pathetic in his attempts to entertain his visitors. As Burton does everything he can to make you hate Augustus, Vercua, Violet and Mike at the moment you first see them, you get instantly closer to Wonka when you noticed he feels the same. In addition to that, John August's vision of Wonka's past (including an always perfect cameo by Christopher Lee) offers the character a real depth you didn't expect. Danny Elfman is also one of the main attractions of the film. While his score is already classic Burton/Elfman work with some interesting experiments (the main themes are splendid), the songs he wrote for the Oompas Loompas are just so funny. Hugh laughs in the audience for some musical choices.

Those songs don't intend to stay with you for months (it would have been hard as they're based on Dahl's lyrics that doesn't allow Broadway impulses), they're just off-beat numbers playing with many references in so many styles. Oingo Boingo fans have to buy the soundtrack when it'll come out, it'll bring them back 15 years ago. What can I tell you more ? McDowell's sets are amazing, Pescucci's work is impressive as well as Rousselot's beautiful cinematography. Some Oscar Nominations should fall here. As for the ending, without revealing it, August's additions are really touching and fit perfectly to Burton's new approach. Even though the final shot tempers the "family" theme that he developed through the film (it's still Burton, not Disney), Burton makes you feel good because he feels good (and what I'm writing here will ring a bell when you'll see the movie). I don't know for you but after so many distressed and pessimistic films, it really moved to see that he found a certain peace. Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a step forward in the direction he gave to his career with Big Fish.

He lost his father, he became one, he's getting older and all those questions and doubts are expressed in many important and very complex images and scenes he imagined for the film. That's why I could call this film the "Edward Scissorhands" of his new period. Those films are very different but gave me both some very essential emotions. Thank you, M.Burton. Thank you very much Was the above review useful to you? 404 out of 579 people found the following review useful: Nothing could be sweeter... from Kansas City, MO 12 July 2005 Growing up, my favorite book was, easily, "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory". Roald Dahl's magical tale of a young boy's adventure in the strange factory was spell-binding. Though I never had a problem with the original "Willy Wonka" move with Gene Wilder (despite how unfaithful it was, it was still a cute and heart-warming movie), I was doing back-flips when I heard Tim Burton, quite possibly my all-time favorite director, would helm a new version of the movie. First and foremost, Johnny Depp is perfect as Willy Wonka.

What people don't really pick up from the first movie is that Wonka was intended to be, well, crazy. He was eccentric and freaky, the way he allowed the rotten children to get what they deserved and protected his factory like it was his child. Gene Wilder portrayed Wonka more like a fatherly-figure, and really was just too nice. Depp pulls out all of the stops as a new Willy Wonka, though there are times that any audience member will get just a bit freaked out. What I loved most about the movie was how faithful it was to the book. Everything that was mentioned, from the chocolate palace to the hair toffee, was taken directly from the book. I was incredibly impressed. This is definitely a movie for everyone, especially those of us who hold the original tale in our hearts. Wonka chocolate bars for all! Was the above review useful to you? 402 out of 586 people found the following review useful: The Fabulous Return of Willy Wonka from Belgium 5 July 2005 Yesterday I had the pleasure of watching "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" at the Wilkinson American Movie Day. And, oh boy, I was in delight!

Don't expect a bleak remake of the amusing (and rather psychedelic) 1971-version. It is in every way a genuine Tim Burton-movie, stacked with beautiful imagery, wacky humor and bizarre characters, but at the same time faithful enough to the spirit of the novel. Roald Dahl would've been proud. It also features outstanding performances by the entire cast. Johnny Depp gives us a strange, almost creepy Willy Wonka, Freddie Highmore is a perfect Charlie, the Grandparents are lovable and wacky, and the five other children and their parents are amusingly irritating. And last but not least, an excellent soundtrack by Mr. Danny Elfman, reminiscent of both Edward Scissorhands and his early Oingo Boingo-days. Go see this with your parents, children, grandparents, movie buff-friends, nephews and nieces ... they will be equally delighted! Was the above review useful to you? 215 out of 328 people found the following review useful: Wonkatrastrophe 20 July 2005 *** This review may contain spoilers *** Tim Burton kept saying he wanted to make a version much more faithful to the source material, which leaves me wondering why he didn't.

There's the awful (and unnecessary, and counterproductive) back story showing Wonka's childhood, which is nothing more than an excuse for Burton to bring in one of his horror movie heroes from childhood (Christopher Lee) while completely killing any sense of mystery Wonka might otherwise possess. I like Johnny Depp, but his Wonka had zero warmth...and was just plain creepy and random - one minute he's snippy and/or oblivious to the kids, the next he's paternal, offering Charlie some nourishing hot chocolate because he "looks like he could use it" (and because it's a line from the book). Wonka in the book is a spritely little gent...neither Gene Wilder nor Johnny Depp are really much like him (much less so Depp), but Wilder's interpretation always has that twinkle in his eye - you know he's a little eccentric but he's always in control. The kids in this version are all pretty good. But Wonka himself? Yikes. Give me Gene Wilder's version over creepy Johnny Depp's Michael Jackson take any day. The Oompa-Loompa musical numbers blew. The first one, in the chocolate room, was okay.

But overall, I had a hard time understanding most of the lyrics. It was all just raucous noise. Come on, Elfman, you can do better than that. Wonka telling Charlie he can't bring his family to live with him in the factory was insane. First of all, it makes Wonka look even more like a freaky pedophile; second of all - how on earth is that faithful to the book?! This is the second time in recent memory I've heard of a producer/director wooing the widow of a beloved children's book author and then she deciding that her dead husband would love this new big-screen version of his source material. Somewhere, Dr. Seuss is consoling Roald Dahl. Was the above review useful to you? 150 out of 215 people found the following review useful: Not bad, but not good, either... 15 July 2005 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I know I'm in the minority here, but I wasn't jumping up and down about this movie. I loved the book as a child and loved the original film with Gene Wilder for its own original contributions...perhaps I'm biased.

Still, I have always admired Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's work, and had been looking forward to this new interpretation of Roald Dahl's book. This film was, indeed, more true to the book than the 1971 version...the squirrel room, the jungle scene, the children leaving the factory, perhaps a little "wiser for the wear." However, the character development of the 1971 version was MUCH better than here...you were actually given an opportunity to like or dislike each character, including Willy Wonka. I did think that Johnny Depp's portrayal of Wonka was more true to the book than Gene Wilder's...Willy Wonka is supposed to be quite childish and eccentric. However, I thought that this film's preoccupation with being true to the book caused it to overlook what is more important, which is to establish the intentions of each character.

At least in the 1971 version, it's pretty clear what each character's intentions are...even if establishing some of these intentions requires a conspiracy involving "Slugworth." And though I haven't read the book in a very long time, I do NOT remember any details being given as to Willy Wonka's childhood...I thought these were unnecessary, distracting, and a waste of time. This energy could have been better spent on the children's' character development, in my opinion. This is, after all, supposed to be a story for and about children. The oompa loompas. It's true that they are physically portrayed accurately here more so than in the 1971 version, i.e. very small people and not midgets with orange skin and green hair. However, though the songs they sing here are true to the book, they are less charismatic than those of the 1971 film and sometimes seem over the top. Also, I didn't like that they were all clones of each other...I think that was a poor choice. Finally, I was appalled with the ending...this ties in with my previous comments re: Willy Wonka's childhood.

It changed the whole idea behind the story itself, which is supposed to be (from my perspective) that people can overcome their hardships to have a happy and prosperous ending, as long as they're honest, selfless, and generous. This movie changes the whole theme of the story to one that emphasizes the importance of family over any kind of material wealth or prosperity. Both are perfectly good and legitimate themes, but my reading of the book left me with an impression that Roald Dahl was more concerned with the former theme than the latter. Accordingly then, this movie did not do the book justice in the most important and fundamental way, whereas the 1971 film was able to do so despite its shortcomings. Was the above review useful to you? 112 out of 160 people found the following review useful: Just does not hold up to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 10 November 2005 *** This review may contain spoilers *** This movie was simply awful. Willy Wonka lacked the warmth, humor and wit that was shown by Gene Wilder in the original. The use of one person as the Oompa loompas comes off as cheap production, whether it was or not.

The changes made, even subtle ones such as the order or events between Charlie finding the money and getting the last ticket and the introduction of the elevator just seem off. One of the most memorable moments is left out, which is the fizzy drink that makes Charlie and Uncle Joe float around. The oompa loompa sequences are horrible, the main characters fail to connect with the viewer as they did in the original.. I could go on and on but will just end by saying.... This movie is proof that new technology, different actors, producers and directors do not always equal a better experience. Save your time and your money... buy and watch the original. My 5 year only daughter even prefers it over the new. Was the above review useful to you? 81 out of 107 people found the following review useful: This film is just wrong and horrible 4 July 2006 *** This review may contain spoilers *** First of its important to say that I am a Roald Dahl fan, and indeed a fan of the original 1971 film Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. What that film and the work of Roald Dahl have in common is charm, warmth, eccentricity etc.

This Tim Burton film does not share in any of it. Having sat and forced myself to watch the entire film hoping something good would happen I was left feeling nothing but empty. I enjoyed most of Tim Burton's work and was rather excited about this film when it was announced, the trailers never gave away too much and I kept on hoping right up until the credits rolled. So whats so bad about it then? My first massive problem with the film is the reactions from the children through the film. Were they sedated during filming? Watch the scene where they tear down the chocolate river in the boiled sweet boat, does one of them even scream in delight? are they not amazed they are on a boat made from candy on a river of flowing chocolate? Most of the time they stand there looking like they would rather be somewhere else, how are we supposed to believe in the wonder of this amazing factory if the kids there aren't even impressed (too much blue screen work perhaps, means the poor actors had nothing to be amazed at) my second not quite as massive problem with the film is Burton's muse Johnny Depp. Perhaps their relationship is getting stale but Depp's performance as Willy Wonka was nothing but irritating; less eccentric, more pathetic.

The creepy grey skin, luminous teeth, puppy dog eyes and hushed voice all add up to a character that I was bored of in the first 5 minutes after seeing him. The ridiculous back story of his childhood was totally superfluous and added nothing to the film, it's like Burton really wasn't trying 'why does wonka love candy....? hmmmm maybe his father was a wicked dentist who wouldn't let him eat it... I could get christopher lee to play him! get on to casting!' Wonka was supposed to be a man with years and years of experience behind him, a weathered eccentric not an excitable/sedated puppy point number 3 THE MUSIC, perhaps the worst score to a film I have ever heard, Danny elfman, shame on you. OK so they wanted to bring the songs up to date but jeez the music is just bad, the incidental music is bad also, its all bad. #4 the Oompa Loompa's. this really made me sad, really sad, so in the revised book they are like miniature cavemen, in the 1971 film they are crazy psychedelic dwarfs, in this film they are...

one man, one dwarf, Burton employed him in 'Big Fish' he did OK there but he is so wrong for the part of an oompa loompa and why does he have to play all of them? another gimmick that I suspect Burton really didn't waste any time over coming up with, his expressionless face might have worked as a sad clown but the cheeky Oompa Loompas? I think not there were a few god points, the authenticity (minus the stupid flashbacks) I loved seeing the candy boat in all its glory, the fudge mountain , an actual glass elevator rather than the weird gold thing in the 1971 film but who really cares about all these things when not one person in the film seemed to be impressed by it, did the crew record dry run rehearsals by accident? ( by the way the original elevator of the book didn't have rockets on the side it used sky hooks and was powered by sugar but kids would just laugh at that right?) It was nice to see charlie's dad regardless of the fact he is of no importance to the film. The sets were OK but lacked any real wow factor.

basically if you took burtons script chucked out all the nonsense hired a new director kept the sets and gave them a bit more wow and hired a new sound guy and told everyone to smile and have a laugh it wouldn't be that bad, but that didn't happen, mores the pity. OK so one day, say 30 years from now I will make it again its the only way I can resolve my issues with this disaster. in short if you are a roald dahl fan and like the 1971 film DO NOT WATCH THIS, honestly I regret ever seeing it Was the above review useful to you? 90 out of 134 people found the following review useful: Did anyone NOT like this movie? (please comment only if you aren't a fan p.s. Spoilers) 23 July 2005 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I was actually excited to see this movie, I wasn't expecting anything, I was just intrigued to see another Tim Burton film. The pictures in the film and the factory were spectacular and mesmerizing. Without even paying attention to the story line it was clear this was a Tim Burton film, truly fantastic.

But Like watching a model trying to ponder physics, the beauty is only skin deep. Where was the heart in this movie? The acting, the dialog, the people all fell short of human behavior. Small example: A child spoiled all her life only taunts her father with the resounding demand: "I want it Daddy." Where's the yelling, the screams, has no one EVER SEEN a tantrum?? Additional Example: The parents seemed hardly upset with their children's misfortune. As a parent would you not run out and help your daughter if she were attacked by ANYTHING much less squirrels?! The Ompa Loompa problem: I loved them actually. Tiny, creepy, and what a great story on how they were found. They were great until they broke into a bad Britney spears song and dance. What the #*!$*#& was that?! Flashback problem: I loved johnny's character, quirky and fun. Nevertheless, the flashbacks didn't add much at all to anything. And they were executed in the WORST WAYS i've ever seen. "sorry I was having a flashback." They are far better ways to have had those worked honestly. The T.V.

kid: was he really so horrible? I mean yes, he was obnoxious, but it doesn't take t.v. to do that. In fact, didn't t.v. just make him smart? Is it so awful that he figured out how to find the bar with the ticket? T.V. didn't turn his mind to mush, it made him the smartest kid who was just annoying and stubborn. The ending: Horrible, horrible, horrible. I don't even want to talk about it. Was the above review useful to you? 105 out of 168 people found the following review useful: Burton Studied the Book's Original Illustrations from Long Island, USA 18 July 2005 If Tim Burton's out there I just want to thank him for bringing the spirit of the book's original illustrations to the screen. He even matched the facial expressions to the drawings, especially in the case of Charlie's family. Charlie himself looks like one of the drawings, and the Bucket house is so much like the illustrations it caused me to realize that Burton is as visual as any movie director can be. (Recent editions feature the work of a different illustrator.

I'm talking about the illustrations from the 1960s. The difference between the older illustrations and the newer ones is the older ones feature a lot of cross-hatching. I imagine the older illustrations are still available, especially in a hardcover, but you'll need to search the net.) I don't know how he did it, but he got the facial expressions of Charlie's family and of Mike Teavea's father down perfectly. He also absorbed Dahl's sense of humor. The opening fifteen minutes or so, in which the winners of the golden tickets are announced one by one, really get Roald Dahl's sense of the ridiculous. I think Burton's addition of Wonka's childhood story fits well, although I'll agree that the way this is resolved is not completely in Dahl's spirit. Even in the resolution, however, Burton maintains sly humor. It is well-acted by everybody. I'd like to say that Julia Winter, who plays Veruca Salt, has turned in a truly well-observed comedic performance.

Depp converts the novel's jaunty, precise Wonka into a quirky one, but it works well, because, as in the novel, Wonka's endearing traits contrast with the fact that he's a tyrant. Roald Dahl gets a rap for his cynicism, and this movie softens his message a bit. Dahl is a bit like Orwell. Both of them point out that man, given power, will exploit his fellow human beings. CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY the movie is not quite as dark as the book. But it comes very, very close. Was the above review useful to you? 100 out of 160 people found the following review useful: Do yourself a favour and go rent the original. *** This review may contain spoilers *** Absolutely awful. Sorry, it's the truth. I wanted it to be good too. The original is brilliant, a timeless piece of pop culture. But what Tim Burton did to this film... OK, picture Fred Durst, Avril Lavigne, the Spice Girls, and the New Kids on the Block covering "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Drunk. That is really how bad this film is.

My biggest problem with the film is that they left out Charlie's sin. I mean, no fizzy lifting drinks? C'mon!! One of the things that humanized the original Charlie, the polite and thoughtful one amongst a pastiche of brats, is that Charlie too broke the rules, and reasonably invoked Wonka's wrath. Charlie's innate good nature eventually redeems him, Also, for Darwin's sake, cut out the music. "PAINFUL" is the only word I can conjure to describe it. I will admit that I have not read the Dahl novel, so I do not know if the original included all the drudgerous background on Wonka. However, the constant flow-killing flashbacks slows the pace of the movie to a crawl, and normally Depp's acting can carry any role, but this script and character rendering were just terrible. Perhaps the background information on Wonka should have been one big chunk in the beginning of the movie, because spacing it out has no build-up value at all. Also, worst voice on a Depp character, well, ever. There really was nothing to redeem this piece-of-crap moneysucker. I can't believe I actually wasted $12 to see it.

Between this, "The Stepford Wives," and "Godzilla," I have lost all faith in the movie industry. Was the above review useful to you? Page 1 of 137: Audience Reviews for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ½ Because so much in Tim Burton's films stems from his vivid imagination, his films are highly personal, love-hate affairs. If you love one first time round, you'll want to see it again along with everything else he's made. If you hate it, or are simply bored by it, you'll resist seeing the film a second time. But in the case of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a second viewing could just be the key to appreciating it, and - perhaps more importantly - understanding what makes Burton so magical. Comparisons were obviously going to be drawn between this and the 1971 adaptation, starring Gene Wilder. The first version made several changes from the book (like making the Oompa Loompas orange rather than pygmies) and was famously disowned by Roald Dahl himself. This version remained in development hell for over a decade while various directors, screenplays and leading men were presented to the Dahl estate, and all of them were refused.

It's therefore a given that, with the Dahl estate on board, this adaptation is the closest possible to the original story. Fans of the book will revel in the casting of the child actors, and Freddie Highmore in particular, who are well-accomplished and seem born to play their characters. Some liberties are taken of course, but unlike the earlier version, they by and large compliment the narrative. The dark back-story, with Willy Wonka's father being a dentist who forbids him from eating chocolate, works because it broadens out the character of Wonka. It prevents him from being just another English eccentric, and with the new denouement of the film, we actually start to sympathise with him rather than simply finding him a little freaky. When it comes to Wonka himself, there is no-one better to play him than Johnny Depp. For all of Wilder's charm and comic ability, Depp manages to tap into the nub of Wonka's demons, vocalising them in that voice which is alternately jittery and flamboyant, and in a physical manner which is both creepy and charming.

Comparisons with Michael Jackson, however, are barking up the wrong tree; Depp's portrayal is by his own admission closer in character to that of Howard Hughes. His Wonka, like Hughes, is a man with a singular love, a love to which he has dedicated his life and which threatens to consume him now he is ageing. There are fine performances through the rest of the adult cast. Noah Taylor, still most famous for his cameo in Vanilla Sky, is convincing as Charlie's father, while Helena Bonham Carter is reigned in by her fiancée to give a subtle turn as the mother. David Kelly and Liz Smith are entertaining as two of the grandparents, and Missi Pyle is the most interesting (and appealing) of the spoilt children's parents. And of course, one must not overlook the deadpan Deep Roy as every single one of the Oompa-Loompas. If there is a flaw with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it is that there is so much visual delight, so much going on on the surface, that the viewer may start to grow suspicious that there is nothing underneath.

The rich and camp colour scheme - which make the factory look like the Joker's lair - is so overpowering that it threatens to obscure the moral points of the film. Burton is therefore wise to include enough scenes and snippets of dialogue to bolster the film's warnings against excess and selfishness. Whether in the invasion of the stores to find the golden tickets, or the piquant one-liners emanating from the children, this film has its eyes on the prize - so much so that we even forgive Burton for the highly sentimental last line. The only other flaw with this film is the songs. Burton's close relationship with Danny Elfman has led some critics to believe that all of his films are essentially musicals. Sure enough, Elfman serves up another captivating score over the excellent opening credits. But the puppet scene upon entering the factory grounds manages to be downright toe-curling. And while the Oompa-Loompas sing lyrics written by Dahl himself, they are produced and processed in such a way that we cannot understand them. It's like dressing the Teletubbies in bondage gear and watching them through a kaleidoscope. For all these little flaws, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remains one of Burton's best films.

Like Batman Returns and Sleepy Hollow before it, the niggling little flaws in either the script or the execution of certain scenes are more than compensated for by the overall quality. The result is a visual delight with a deep moral root, a charming children's story which marries the darkness of Dahl's original to the gothic majesty that Burton has been honing since Beetlejuice. On first viewing, the visuals and altered ending may throw you off. But by persevering, and revisiting, disappointment can be avoided. Daniel Mumby Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Film Reviews - The Rap - RollerCoaster Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Director: Tim Burton Cast: Johnny Depp as Willie Wonka Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs Bucket Noah Taylor as Mr Bucket Review by Tam, 13 When Charlie Bucket finds a golden ticket in his candy bar wrapper he gets invited to tour Willie Wonka's chocolate factory. Willie Wonka is very weird and his top secret factory is even weirder. There are lots of amazing inventions and all the workers are little guys from the jungle called Oompa Loompas.

When some of the other kids on the tour get into trouble, the Oompa Loompas sing funny songs and dance around. No one else seems to know what's going on but Willie Wonka happily bops along in his own weird way. I loved the river of chocolate, the garden where everything was edible, and the glass elevator that could fly anywhere. Some of the things that happened to the kids were pretty creepy. But that will teach them for being so naughty. I really liked this movie and give it four out of five stars. You know what? It's no wonder Willie Wonka is so weird - his Dad is Count Dooku from Star Wars! Chance rates it 3.5 out of 5 -- The high rating is for the humor and the acting. This movie hardly stuck to the book and that's always dissapointing. The Oompa Loompas were nothing like they should have been and the ending was so diffrent from the book. Infact neither the one with Gene Wilder or Johnny Depp were like the book, but I like to watch them both anyways. Eleni rates it 5 out of 5 -- this version of charlie and the chocolate factory is more faithful to the book.

It also explains alot about Willy Wonkas past. freya rates it 5 out of 5 -- i loved it! i read the book. this movie is much better than the first movie i did my school play on it (i was veruca salt)it was soo much fun! its quite funny cos my bro liked it! and he's 15 i was very suprised! i dont know what else 2 say but the clear message is its soo good!!!!!! Funky Monkey rates it 5 out of 5 -- This movie was really funny and I enjoyed it. Funky Monkey rates it 5 out of 5 -- This movie was really funny and I enjoyed it. Geordie rates it 5 out of 5 -- I loved this movie way way way more than the last 'cause the ompaloompa songs were different to each other and the words for the songs were from the book aswell. No wonder I gave it 5 stars.

Jasmine rates it 4.5 out of 5 -- "Everything in this room is eatable, even I'm eatable but that is called canabalism my dear children and is frowned apon in most societies" when i first saw the movie my friend and i were watching it at her house and we replayed that bit over and over and over again!! i love it!! it has even been my msn name for a while. i think johnny depp did a great job in this movie. but the litle boy who plays charlie was so cute it was annoying!! every word he said made me wanna strangle him because of how cute he was!!! Jasmine rates it 4.5 out of 5 -- "Everything in this room is eatable, even I'm eatable but that is called canabalism my dear children and is frowned apon in most societies" when i first saw the movie my friend and i were watching it at her house and we replayed that bit over and over and over again!! i love it!! it has even been my msn name for a while. i think johnny depp did a great job in this movie.

but the litle boy who plays charlie was so cute it was annoying!! every word he said made me wanna strangle him because of how cute he was!!! Jody rates it 5 out of 5 -- WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Charlie and the chocolate factory was de BEST!!!! Jonny Depp was a bit strange in the movie, having the haircut and stuff, but he sure was funny! And making fun of Veruca Salts' name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had a stitch at laughing at that...well not really..... Anyway, one thing I didn't really like about this movie, Charlie was a bit white I think. And Grandfather Joe was a bit weird. But this movie was much better than the old movie, 'cause Willy Wonka was much funnier. kira -- I think this was the best movie ever because i like the charicter jonny dept plays its realy funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kira -- I think this was the best movie ever because i like the charicter jonny dept plays its realy funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kira rates it 5 out of 5 -- I think charlie and the chocolate facory was the best movie because its funny if you watch at home you could feel like you could taste the chocolate Nintenchick rates it 5 out of 5 -- I luv dat moovy.Only beecoz its got my fave actor of all time in it.................... JOHNNY DEPP :}:}:}:}:}:}:} Pamera rates it 4 out of 5 -- Johnny Depp was really funny!! The other parts like the person who played Charlie was allright and the oompa loompas were cool too. They changed the ending too!! But I still like the original movie better... ruby murton -- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl Roald Dahl Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Published in 1964 Background Background Nobody has seen Willy Wonka - or inside his amazing chocolate factory - for years. When he announces plans to invite the winners of five Golden Tickets hidden inside the wrappers of chocolate bars to visit his factory, the whole world is after those tickets! Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is perhaps Roald Dahl’s best-known story.

The story of Charlie Bucket, the five Golden Tickets, the Oompa-Loompas and the amazing Mr Willy Wonka has become firmly embedded in our culture since it was first published in 1964. Conservative estimates suggest the original book has sold over 20 million copies worldwide; it is now available in 55 languages. Roald Dahl began working on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 1961 shortly after finishing James and the Giant Peach , but its origins can be traced all the way back to Roald's own childhood. In Boy he tells us how, while at school in England, he and his fellow Repton students were engaged as 'taste testers' for a chocolate company - something that seems to have started him thinking about chocolate factories and inventing rooms long before Mr Wonka was on the scene. But when he came to write Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the story went through several drafts - for example, at first Charlie was one of ten children to enter the factory. Roald re-drafted three or four times until the story as we now know it was released in 1964.

Since its release Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which Roald dedicated to his son Theo, has proved to be one of the most enduring children’s books of all time. The story has reached all corners of the world and even unearthed a real-life Willy Wonka, who sent Roald a letter in 1971 - the year the first film adaptation of the book was released. Roald wrote the screenplay for the film release of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, starring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. It was a process that came with some difficulties but the film went on to become a classic, with its now-iconic depictions of many of the story's key elements, from Golden Tickets to Everlasting Gobstoppers. In 2005, 15 years after Roald’s death, renowned filmmaker Tim Burton released his own adaptation of the book. His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory starred Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. In 2010 The Golden Ticket - an opera based on the story, composed by Peter Ash with libretto by Donald Sturrock - premiered in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

And, in 2013, a new musical production opened in London’s West End, directed by Sam Mendes and starring Douglas Hodge as Mr Wonka. In 2014 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory celebrates its 50th anniversary. As part of the many events planned to mark this special occasion, author Lucy Mangan will be taking a look at how the story of Charlie has become a story itself in a new book that will take us all inside the Chocolate Factory, published in September 2014. Here comes Charlie... Movie Review - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Rated: PG Runtime: 1 hour, 55 minutes Directed by: Tim Burton Philip Wiegratz - Augustus Gloop Franziska Troegner - Mrs. Gloop My feelings about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could best be summed up by how one feels about Frosted Mini-Wheats. The kid in me loved the film. I thought it was fun from beginning to end, hilarious, colorful, joyous, and the best movie Id seen all year.

And then the adult in me came along and told him that Frosted Mini-Wheats cause congenital heart failure, that Santa Claus was just arrested for B&E, and that this film is whats wrong with America. But well put the liberal prick on hold and hear why the film is one of Burtons best to date. As opposed to the disasterous Planet of the Apes re-imagining, Burton was well-suited to Roald Dahls twisted tale of parenting, punishment, and candy. Not only was it an adaptation as opposed to a remake of the iconic 1971 Gene Wilder film (theres a reason the film is called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory beyond just frustrating me and making me correct myself everytime I refer to it as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). And casting Depp was certainly no strike against the film because Depp is brilliant in just about everything he does and hes certainly no stranger to playing weird. However, part of me wishes that Michael Keaton had gotten the role, just because the man has been almost non-existant in major motion pictures and I would have really liked to see how he would have portrayed the character.

As for Christopher Walken, the other name mentioned for the role during pre-production…eh. Its a kitschy idea that would have lost appeal after about ten minutes. Burton restructures the story to give us more insight into the character of Willy Wonka and the current situation of Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore, hand-picked by Depp for the role of Charlie after their previous work together on Finding Neverland). And as usual, I always enjoy seeing the establishment of a solid first act as opposed to just rushing into the fun stuff, which would here be the factory. On a filmic level, this is one of Burtons best films as he shows that while many of his contemporaries have lost their touch over the decades, hes only getting better with age. If your brain works like a regular person and doesnt overthink stuff to the point of spoiling it (like mine!), youll be hard-pressed to find a more fun time at the movies this year. Depps performance as Wonka is a bit hard to digest at first.

With his high-pitched voice, awkward social manner, odd-dress and child-like behavior, it seems like hes channeling Michael Jackson which wouldnt be funny as much as it would be creepy and tired. But if youre familiar with Depps previous work, it quickly becomes clear that hes reprising his role as Ed Wood… by way of Jackson. Still, if you convince yourself that this is more Ed Wood than Michael Jackson, the character will work for you (unless youre more comfortable with child-molestors than transvestites, in which case Im gonna ask you on behalf of humanity to just not see the film). There are also two brilliant performances in this film by actors you probably dont know by name. First is Missi Pyle as Mrs. Beuregarde. Shes a great comic actress whos probably made you laugh before in Dodgeball as Fran of the Purple Cobras or as Laliari/Jane Doe in Galaxy Quest. Her first scene in this film had me laughing my ass off through nothing other than her facial expressions.

Shes a great comic actress and heres hoping that someone in Hollywood has the sense to make her more than just a background character. The other great performance belongs to the brilliantly-named Deep Roy as the Oompa Loompas. Thats right, Oompa Loompas plural as hes had his face digitally plastered on to every Oompa Loompa. And despite the orange faces and green hair of the 1971 Oompa Loompas, they dont stand a chance against Roy as he has such a great deadpan face which becomes even funnier when he decides to use exaggerated expressions, like in the Mike TeaVee song. Thats right: there are songs and theyre the best part of the film. Despite his inability to write a score that doesnt sound exactly like his work on previous Burton films (seriously, there are more instruments out there than strings, xylophones, and choral scales) the man writes lyrical songs that will have you heading straight to iTunes after you get home from the theatre. While the original Oompa Loompa songs had their charm they were all pretty much the same.

Here, Elfman obviously has a lot of fun using different kinds of music styles in the child-name songs. For instance, Veruca Salt gets a hippie 70s style tune while Violet gets more of a techno beat. Not only are the songs hilarious, its a joy to watch all these digital Deep Roys dance around (with some excellent choreography, if I might add). While the digital effects in this film are fantastic (although some of the time the digital pasting of Roys face on to other little people looks unnatural), I believe that the films strongest technical achievement is in make-up. Its just the little things that add so much to the film, like making it look like Augustus had no facial blemishes, as if his fat had basically pushed his face into a smooth form. Its eerie and really helps add to the films dark humor. So now that Ive gushed over the artistic and technical achievements of this film, what left is there to complain about? What tiny aspects could I pick at to try and make myself look smarter by needlessly rambling on about the ethical messages presented in the film? Well…there are actually quite a few.

You might want to stop reading now. I know Id want to. If we examine Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on a socio-economic level, we find that it is an extremely problematic film. The film is obviously trying to impart a moral message, which, on the surface, appears to be positive. To kids, the film says Dont be brats.To parents, the film says, Dont let your kids be brats. Nothing wrong with such a message. The film goes on to specifically define certain shortcomings of the children such as obesity, being overly-competitive, materially spoiled, and a know-it-all. You know which kid represents what. But beyond the simple morals, there lies a somewhat darker quality that my stupid brain has to point out. First, the film is all white kids. Now, I understand that Charlie probably has to be British and Augustus has to be German. But was it impossible to change the ethnicity or nationality of the other children? Was there a fear that if we made Mike Teavee hispanic or Veruca Salt asian, that the entire film would crumble?

Would people think that the film was being racist and that apparently hispanics are unimaginative and asians are spoiled? I doubt it, and since the film shows that the Wonka bars go out all over the world, its a little baffling that the five winners would be two Britians, two Americans, and one German. But isnt that any movie? Does every movie have to engage in affirmative action? Of course not, but the film makes a second statement on ethnicity with the Oompa-Loompas. This time, we get a much more elaborate back story, showing Willy Wonka traveling into the jungle and stumbling upon these miniscule people who worship the cocoa bean. Physically, the Oompa-Loompas are tiny (much smaller than the ones in the original film), they all look the same (through the magic of CG), theyre entertaining, and they work for cocoa beans. Now, if we replace the word Oompa-Loompa with “foreigner and remove my irritating quotation marks, we get this sentence: Foreigners are tiny, they all look the same, theyre entertaining, and they work for cocoa beans. Seems slightly racist to me.

And much like the 1971 film, screenwriter John August misses the boat on making Charlies character interesting. Charlie is the perfect child. More perfect than Haley Joel Osment in A.I. could ever be. He has his imagination and dreams of the Wonka factory to keep him warm at night, which is good because the house only has about three-fifths of a roof. And how does Charlie get to be the last kid standing? He keeps his mouth shut and tries to show no personality whatsoever. Granted, the other kids are rotten but that doesnt mean that the best kid is one whos barely there. Charlies a good kid and cares about his family, but theres no way anyone could ever connect to him or even aspire to be him. His demeanor and home life are just too kind. Speaking of characters, I want to take this opportunity to talk about Mike Teavee. In the original film, hes just a TV-freak who simply emulates the violence and heartlessness he sees on television. Here, Mike Teavee is that, but hes also smart.

He gets his Golden Ticket by cracking the system of where the Wonka bar would be and only has to buy one. He doesnt even like chocolate, but its about winning showing off his intellect. Now the film is by no means anti-intelligence. Its anti-know-it-all and its creating a comparison that a child who is obsessed with science and rationality will lack imagination. This rings a bit false when you consider the amount of technology and science put into making this beautiful film, which brings me to my next Mike Teavee point. In both films, the Oompa-Loompas sing about how TV rots ones brain and ruins a childs sense of imagination. Such a concept works beautifully when reading a book. It never translates on to a screen. You cant insult a visual medium and then make a film like this which just oozes creativity. Its basically an opportunity to rework the character and have the moral of his story make sense. But there are plenty of opportunities for that in this film and only time will tell if August and Burton made the right decision in sticking close to Dahls original work.

Sure, kids today have problems with being overly-competitive, greedy, and so forth, but the biggest problem facing todays youth is over-protection by parents. For a story that puts the relationship between parents and their child as one of its main themes, its certainly a missed opportunity to comment on constant interference by parents so that no child ever feel bad. And sure, we see shades of that here, but never do we see underserved merit given to the children nor do we see the parents flat-out lying just so their children wont be wrong. And perhaps these are all extraneous claims. Perhaps I shouldnt worry my silly liberal head about such matters and just go to the local coffee shop and talk about communism. But before I do, I have one more matter to discuss and thats the man himself, Willy Wonka. What makes such a great meeting of this material to a director with Burtons sensabilities is that Burton is able to apply his oft-repeated theme of imaginations double-edged sword to the character of Willy Wonka. Wonka has foregone all parental supervision and has created for himself a world that is his own imagination come to life.

To visit the Chocolate Factory is to step inside the mind of Willy Wonka. The problem with Wonka is that he lacks restraint. He has a vague comprehension of civility, but this is obviously just a quest for understanding that also becomes a tool for punishment. But hes not punishing the chldren as much as hes punishing the parents. Hes imparting the punishment on them that he never could impart on his own father for his overly strict nature. However, Wonka is still a child himself. And while his lessons of morality are fair, its clear that this is how a child would fete out punishment: both joyful and wicked. But the film makes clear that every child needs discipline (except for Charlie.; hes actually Jesus) because thats what creates balance. On first glance, it seems like Burton is being a major hypocrite by criticizng Wonka for an over-indulgence in imagination when its clear that Burton is enjoying that same over-indulgence. But thinking about it, I realize that Burton has lost none of the restraint he showed with Big Fish. Look at this film and tell me its not supposed to be a bit off.

Im not talking colorful or fanciful. Im saying its too much and at first I thought Burton had become too Tim Burton for his own good. But thats not the case. What we have is the wonderful uniqueness of imagination and Burton showing us yet again that only through maturity can we embrace imagination on a pure level. Id like to think of it as Edward Scissorhands for a whole new generation. And not only does a new generation need such a message, but perhaps my generation and the one before me could use it as well, because we do have to ask ourselves if were enjoying the beauty of imagination or simply indulging in the illusion created by nostalgia. Charlie and he Chocolate Factory is a wonderfully fun yet ethically murky film that tore me in two but I do think most people will enjoy it and I have no problem with it success. And if theres one thing that my overly-analytical side and my fun-loving moviegoing side can agree on, its this: Charlie and he Chocolate Factory is a wonderfully fun yet ethically murky film that tore me in two but I do think most people will enjoy it and I have no problem with it success.

My largest regret is that I'll probably have to do this all over again when Tim Burton's Corpse Bride comes out in September and I'm torn between loving it and condemning necrophilia. Words by SCREEN IT! ARTISTIC REVIEW: CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY "CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY" (2005) (Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore) (PG) If you've come from our parental review of this film and wish to return to it, simply click on your browser's BACK button. Otherwise, use the following link to read our complete Parental Review of this film. QUICK TAKE: Comedy: Joining a small group of other winners, a poor boy gets to visit a massive candy factory run by its imaginative if reclusive and quirky owner.

PLOT: Charlie Bucket (FREDDIE HIGHMORE) is a nice kid from a poor family -- including his parents, (HELENA BONHAM CARTER & NOAH TAYLOR) along with Grandpa Joe (DAVID KELLY), Grandma Georgina (LIZ SMITH), Grandma Josephine (EILEEN ESSELL) and Grandpa George (DAVID MORRIS) -- that collectively lives in the shadow of the enormous Wonka Candy factory that dominates their small town. Grandpa Joe once worked in the factory for the highly imaginative but quirky owner, Willy Wonka (JOHNNY DEPP), but when rivals stole all of his secret candy formulas, Wonka fired everyone, shuttered the doors and hasn't been seen since. He's continued to make candy, however, with the aid of the tribesmen known as the Oompa Loompas (all portrayed by DEEP ROY), and has come up with what appears to be a brilliant marketing campaign. Inserted in just five of the millions of Wonka Bars distributed around the world are five golden tickets that will admit the bearer and one parent into the factory for a private tour and meeting with Wonka himself.

Among the winners is Augustus Gloop (PHILIP WIEGRATZ), a German glutton who can't get enough chocolate and arrives with his mother (FRANZISKA TROEGNER). There's spoiled rich brat Veruca Salt (JULIA WINTER) who's accompanied by her businessman father (JAMES FOX) who gives her whatever she wants; brash TV addict Mike Teavee (JORDON FRY) and his dad (ADAM GODLEY); and the highly competitive and egotistical Violet Beauregarde (ANNASOPHIA ROBB) and her mom (MISSI PYLE). As luck would have it, Charlie is the fifth winner and he joins the group as they meet Wonka and enter his enormous factory. Happy to show off his candy inventions but uncomfortable around the kids and the notion of parents, Wonka is reminded of his own unhappy childhood where little Willy Wonka (BLAIR DUNLOP) had to deal with his stern, candy-hating dentist father (CHRISTOPHER LEE).

As he deals with that and a number of the kids who get in over their heads due to their defining characteristics, Wonka has a big surprise for the child who turns out to be purest of heart. OUR TAKE: 5 out of 10 There's a telling scene in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where one of the bratty kids -- a winner of one of five golden tickets that earns them a spot on a private tour of said factory where everything is edible -- seems miffed and incredulously asks why everything there seems so completely pointless. His guide -- a peculiar dandy who comes off like a cross between Michael Jackson, Marilyn Manson and any garden variety movie mental patient with a dreamy temperament -- answers with the nearly lyrical response that candy doesn't have a point and that's why it is what it is. Audiences may view the film the same way -- either as pointless quirkiness or as a sweet concoction that goes down easy and has no purpose other than to make people happy.

If some of the above sounds familiar, that's because this is another interpretation of Roald Dahl's novel of the same name that was previously made into "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." I haven't read Dahl's original work and it's been a while since I saw the earlier version that came out way back in 1971 and has been entertaining kids ever since. Rumored reports state that Dahl wasn't happy with the first film (despite writing the screenplay), but I'm not sure how he'd feel about this version that -- so I've been told -- has embellishments that didn't appear in the original work. As is the case with most remakes, the question that immediately comes to mind is how the film compares to the original. While I suppose one should judge a work on its own, standalone merits, such comparisons are inevitable and actually warranted since one is apt to ask why the story needed to be retold in the first place. While the main plot is basically the same, there are differences in the particulars. And the most notable is how the character of Willy Wonka is portrayed.

In the prior version, Gene Wilder played Wonka as a mixture of stand-in for a stern father figure of the era and a "come see my toys" inventor. A little odd and even a bit menacing at times, he was -- in my view -- a perfect portrayal of the character. Here, director Tim Burton ("Big Fish," "Planet of the Apes") has teamed up once again with star Johnny Depp ("Finding Neverland," the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films) to put an entirely new spin on the character. Depp's Wonka is a standoffish but whimsical man-child, something of a higher functioning Edward Scissorhands sans the those steely appendages (although a brief bit of homage puts such tools back in Depp's hands for a ribbon cutting ceremony). This Wonka is also a conflicted soul, with a troubled childhood past that still torments him to this day.

And that's where Burton and screenwriter John August ("Big Fish," the "Charlie's Angels" films) add new material to the story in the form of flashbacks to Wonka's childhood where his dentist father -- played by Christopher Lee (the "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" films) -- commands that the boy never eat any candy. I'm not sure if that's more homage to Scissorhands (where Vincent Price played the title character's "father") or whether Burton has some such unresolved issue himself, but those scenes don't really do much for the film. Nor do the updated musical numbers where the Oompa Loompas sing about each child character's comeuppance based on their dominant personality trait. While they're decidedly more upbeat than the first time around -- and obviously benefit from a bigger budget and better production values and thankfully omit the sing-along onscreen lyrics from the original -- they're not as hypnotically repetitive as their predecessors and the tacked on cultural references (ranging from "Psycho" to KISS, the Beatles and more) feel nothing more than just that.

And rather than having a bunch of little people painted that sickly orange playing the Oompa Loompas, Burton opted to photograph a fellow by the name of Deep Roy, shrink him down to an even smaller size and then duplicate him ad nauseam. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the original. And that pretty much holds true for the overall film. While this effort has its moments -- including certain bits of dialogue and reactions by Depp, and various comedic moments such as one where a bunch of squirrel laborers take care of an intruder on their "assembly line" -- it just doesn't contain as much magic and wonder as the first (which really stood out in its time when such things weren't as commonplace as they are now, what with all of the computer horsepower on hand, etc. for making movies). The one thing I really liked, however, was the beginning of the film. I'm not talking about the factory scenes and footage of Wonka (which, if I remember correctly, waited in the first film for the actual tour to enhance the mystique of who the kids were meeting and what they were getting into), but rather those featuring the title character at home (or, more accurately, his vertically challenged abode).

Following Depp from "Finding Neverland," Freddie Highmore is absolutely delightful as the title character who's such a good kid that he cares about his family more than anything else. There are some terrific grandson/grandfather scenes between him and David Kelly (in the Jack Albertson role) that give such moments a lot of heart. Such scenes, coupled with Burton's standard touches of whimsy, production design and composer Danny Elfman's score work brilliantly, even if they're just a slight variation of the material from the first film. Unfortunately, they all but disappear once Charlie and his grandpa enter the factory. That's when we discover that the attractive candy shell contains some odd-tasting filling that, to quote the one kid, eventually comes off as pointless. As the likes of Annasophia Robb ("Because of Winn-Dixie"), Julia Winter (making her debut), Jordan Fry (ditto) and Philip Wiegratz (ditto) go through their paces, Highmore's character is pretty much relegated to the background. Thus, all that made the early part of the film so engaging all but evaporates inside the factory scenes.

Of course, it doesn't help that those of us familiar with the original know where the story is headed, but it all feels far a bit meaningless this time around. When Charlie, Grandpa Joe and Wonka eventually get back to the family's house, things finally pick up again, but so much of the middle does feel like empty calories. In keeping with the candy analogies, I suppose that could be the point, but for me, the result just isn't as tasty as the first time around. While "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" has its moments, I prefer the look and taste of the non-enhanced, old-fashioned original. This new version rates as a 5 out of 10. Reviewed July 9, 2005 / Posted July 15, 2005 If You're Ready to Find Out Exactly What's in the Movies Your Kids are Watching, Click the Add to Cart button below and join the Screen It family for just $7.95/month or $47/year

Question: In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, what was the name of the little people who worked for Willy Wonka and loved to sing?
Answer: Oompa Loompas